Nikon D7500 DSLR camera review

It’s no secret that when Nikon introduced the new D7500, the reception was less than enthusiastic. In looking back, I actually think that maybe “brutal” is a more accurate description.

After the announcement, pundits lamented endlessly about the lack of a second SD card slot, the omission of the Ai indexing tab, and of course the elimination of vertical grip support. And honestly, any one of those has deal-breaking potential, depending on what you need as a photographer.

The thing is, while Nikon deleted some features, the camera also received a variety of useful upgrades. Sadly, these were summarily dismissed by the naysayers.

Well, since I'm not one to render verdicts from my office chair, I decided to purchase a D7500 the first day it was available and draw my own conclusions. Over the next month or so, I used it as my primary work camera and took it with me to several really great locations. I was eager to see for myself if there was more to this new member of the Nikon family than meets the eye - or if it truly was a black sheep.

In the video below, you’ll see my conclusions, as well as a comparison of the D7500 to the other top dogs of Nikon’s DX lineup - namely the D7200 and D500. I’ll show you real world usage, samples, and even some tips and tricks. So, let’s dive in:

Below you'll find a handful of sample images from the D7500 along with descriptions of what I felt were the most useful aspects of the camera for each photograph.

Wild Burros (Nikon D7500, Nikon 300PF, 1/1000th, F4, ISO 900)

I captured quite a few of the sample images from my D7500 while visiting Custer State Park in South Dakota. The burros run wild there, and we were lucky enough to spot this mother and foal. At first glance, this looks like a scene that any camera can capture - and that’s probably true - however, the high frame rate of the D7500 was nice to have.

You see, this isn’t exactly as it seems. Although it may appear as just a static shot of the little guy lovin’ on his mother, in reality this was captured when he decided it was time to rub his head on hers -vigorously. The high frame rate of the D7500 allowed me to capture a variety of wonderful expressions.

We spotted this little guy while scouting locations one early afternoon. Generally speaking, I don't shoot in the middle of the day, but there was a nice bright overcast that allowed for an opportunity. I switched to the new Highlight Weighted metering mode to help avoid overexposing the bright areas and it worked like a champ.

Swimming Swan (Nikon D7500, Nikon 300PF, 1/1600th, F4, ISO 280)

This was my very first night out with the camera at a local marsh. There wasn’t much going on, and I was about to leave when I came across this swan making his way through the vegetation. Thanks to the small, lightweight combo of this camera and the 300 PF, I was easily able to maneuver to ground level to capture this image.

Photographing swallows is always a tricky proposition, and when I found a nesting box in Custer SP, I knew I had to give the D7500’s AF system a workout. While it did struggle at times - especially compared to the 153 point system in the D5/D500, it was still able to put some nice keepers on my card. I experimented with every AF mode, and without a doubt Group AF was the best choice for this scenario - something that’s not even an option on the D7200.

This is an example of why I love the new tilt screen combined with the increased Live View AF speed of the D7500 over the D7200. Normally to get a shot like this I’d have to lie flat on the ground - a risky proposition with all the bison exhaust strewn across the prairie. This system allowed me to get my rig nice and low and use the tilt screen to capture my images. I also really enjoyed the “touch to focus” option - it made capturing these images far easier than typical Live View. (see the video to watch it in action).

I know, it’s a pretty basic shot, but there is a trick to these guys (aside from just getting close enough for a photo). When they sing, they like to close the nictitating membrane over their eyes - making them look like little bird zombies. However, their eyes do pop open on occasion as they warble. With that in mind, I’d wait till the music started, and simply do short bursts at 8FPS. Most of the time I’d end up with a keeper or two each burst.

What I like about the D7500 is that the fast frame rate and relatively deep buffer make it a fantastic little camera for action sequences. While it’s not D500 speed, it was still noticeably quicker than the D7200 and was perfect for keeping pace with this little racing pronghorn fawn.

Finally, we have this image - and yes, just about any camera can capture a picture like this. And that’s the point. In many cases, we simply don’t need blistering speed or a boatload of features to capture a given image. In fact, I think most images fall into this category. Just something I like to keep in mind when I find myself obsessing over specifications sometimes. 🙂

Concluding Thoughts

I have one final thought that I’d like to share with you. The major gripe about the D7500 is what Nikon took away - and I still think that deleting those options was a mistake. However, it’s also interesting to note that most of what was taken away does far less to help you capture great images than what was added.

After all, I have seldom credited my vertical grip with helping me capture a once-in-a-lifetime photo, nor has having a second empty card sitting in the overflow slot ever done much to net me a cover shot. What does help in those cases are things like faster FPS, a deeper buffer, better AF modes (like the addition of Group and better 3D AF), faster Live View AF - coupled with that tilting touch screen, and even things like Electronic First Curtain Shutter. All of those new features do far more to help secure great images than (most) of the deleted features.

So, if you’re looking at this camera from a technical perspective, irritated at what Nikon removed, it will seem like a step backward. However, if you’re looking at it from the standpoint of a shooter, I think you may discover there is something to like about it after all.

Defective Lexar XQD card in a D500. Glad jpg were going to the SD card. And glad I wasn’t using a D7500.

Allen_Wentz

Just curious, how did the defective card present? I.e., how did you know the slot #1 card had failed (in case such a thing happens to me on my D500)? Have you determined that it was definitely the card as opposed to slot issues?

It is good that the JPG backup worked, but too bad both slots were not XQD. If the second slot was XQD properly bussed you could have been shooting NEF+Fine to both slots, and faster.

The problem with faulty cards and it happens is that you don’t know until you come to download the images (I never have) I have had three CF cards, genuine Sandisks, fail over three years, I would never ever use any camera with just one slot. EVER

Mike

What would you have done prior to 2007?!

Carleton Foxx

Back then, cards held so few pictures that you didn’t risk as much.

Mike

True. But it’s all relative. You could get a lot of pics on a 1GB card when using 4, 6 or even 10mp. 8GB cards are the lowest you can get nowadays. With 24mp you get a similar amount to 10mp on a 1GB card. But again, if what you’re doing causes loss-of-data anxiety, the D7500 is not the right camera for you.

Rick

You would have had to deal with it because there was no choice. But this is not 2007. Taking away features that have been in 3 generations prior is generally not going to be met with acceptance.

Eric Duminil

What I did during weddings : many SD/CF cards and an assistant making backups with a card reader and a laptop after every important event during the day. The goal being to detect a card failure as soon as possible (it never happened) but mostly, to have important pictures in 2 different places as soon as possible.

Mike

Same. In my D80/300/700 days I swapped 4GB with abandon and kept the potential of loss to a minimum. I also had an Epson external back up/image viewer that I kept busy during the day too.

TheInfinityPoint

I’ve had similar issues with a Lexar 64 GB SD card on my D800. It was maybe 1 in every 500 or so (which is about 1 in each time lapse I shot). Somehow I haven’t had any issues with it in my D610 (yet).

Those images look fantastic but a 600 mm f/4 lens + TC on most shots here? If someone is having the money for such a lens he should definitively buy the D500 🙂 …sad to see that Nikon didn’t allow optical preview (Pv) by assigning that function to a button – it’s a simple software thing or it wouldn’t have hurt to have this option assignable in the menu.

silmasan

Do you mean the DoF preview button? Doesn’t that control the aperture mechanically, which is why it’s always positioned close to the mount? Well, not sure how E-aperture lenses work with that though, I need to update myself…

Ushanas Trivedi

If you want all features buy D500. Simple, isn’t it!. This is for those who can leave without few features but wants to save money. What a manufacturer can do is to provide as many options as possible & user can choose the most suitable for his/her needs. D500/D7500/D7200 are more than enough of alternatives to choose from. You need to realize Nikon can’t create camera custom made for each consumer.

Yes, but Nikon needs to respect or understand that not everybody appreciates the more bulky and more heavy camera even if it is having all the greatest tech specs.

Ushanas Trivedi

Okay. But you have D7200, D750 & D610 if you want lighter & compact camera with dual card slot. If you want super lightweight, pick D5600 but again single card slot. See, you have many options. I am sure one would fit your needs if your current camera doesn’t

It wasn’t a complain at all. I like the size of my D600 and also the D750. The grip fits into my hand nicely even if using heavier lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8. Nikon ergonomics balances well with heavier telephoto lenses. If you’re going too small you get the crippled ergonomics of a Sony A7 or A9.

Marek Anatol

No way, I’m not going to buy D500 to have usual D7x00 features.

And not only because of the price – D500 is simply too big and heavy. I’m not professional photographer – I need the camera for my tourist trips (I travel a lot) and D7200 with grip is really at the edge of weight I can accept. If Nikon won’t offer decent D7200 successor when I decide to replace my camera, I will simply switch to another system. For now, the Fuji X-T2 looks interesting.

Meanwhile – I was planning to upgrade my old 70-300 to the new AF-P version, also considered buying the new N10-20 VR – but since it is likely that 2 years from now I will change the system…

Ushanas Trivedi

Alright. So, what is problem with D7200 which you want to solve? I am also curious as to why you have added grip if weight is your primary concern. Looks counterproductive. Most of us are just bashing manufacturers without knowing our own requirements. Plus two lenses you mentioned are lightweight champions if you are talking about DX version of af-p 70-300mm. I don’t think you will find such lightweight lenses with any other system

Marek Anatol

> So, what is problem with D7200 which you want to solve?

For now – articulated screen would be nice. And better sensor is always welcome. And something better then crappy WMU. I guess with the next generation there will be even more reasons.

> I am also curious as to why you have added grip if weight is your primary concern. Looks counterproductive.

Because a lot of photos I take are in portrait orientation, grip makes it MUCH easier – so much, that I don’t want to go back to using camera without one. And D7200 + grip is still manageable regarding weight (although barely, after a week my neck starts to hurt).

Yes, the lens are lightweight – but in Fuji system I can have light body to compensate this.

I agree – and I usually use a D5 / D500 for my wildlife work. However, I used the camera the way I would use it if it were in my bag – with the lenses at hand. Note that there are a few from the 300PF in that group as well. There would have been even more – some with eh 200-500 – but LR still isn’t updated for the D7500 and I can’t stand using Capture NX-D so I just did what I needed 🙂

Thank you for you time. Your images and reviews are awesome and very helpful! Especially the comparison of the 200-500 and 300 PF was very interesting and comprehensive for me. There aren’t much YouTube people out there who put so much valuable thoughts into it.

Delmar Mineard Jr

I watched this video yesterday and this is a very good article if you can not decide between the D7200 & D7500 & D500. Really nicely done.

Steve Perry’s review was comprehensive and fair. I’ve had a D7500 for about 10 days; I upgraded from a D5300. I carefully considered whether to get a D7100, D7200, D500, or a D7500. All of them are fine cameras, targeted at different types of users with different needs. (My D7500 pictures are on Flickr, under the name AphidmanCalgary, in the album “2017 Calgary Stampede.)

If you really need a DX camera with two card slots for redundancy (which seems to be the deleted feature that is causing the most meltdowns), there are still 3 models available. Based on the types of pictures that I take, the bigger buffer, 8 fps, tilting touch screen, ability to get geotagging data via the despised SnapBridge, and lower price than the D500, were the deciding factors. Just saying that there is a market segment that finds this model to be appealing.

It will be interesting to see if the eventual successor the the D7500 (if there is one) will restore any of the deleted features that caused such uproar.

Spy Black

“…nor has having a second empty card sitting in the overflow slot ever done much to net me a cover shot.”

…except that people griping about that use the second slot for redundant backup for time critical events like weddings and such. So yes, serious omission. The Ai linkage and even grip are excusable in.my view, but now not having redundent backup, when you had it before, is not.

Mike

Then again, if you’re shooting weddings, you should know this is not the camera for you. This may not be the camera for anyone who gets paid and needs cheap insurance that is a 2nd card slot. That said, plenty of people have shot weddings with a Fuji XT-1 or any Sony a7 series camera. Put a single slot in a Nikon and suddenly it’s an issue.

Aphidman

There is a documented tendency to wildly over-estimate the risk from situations that the individual has little or no personal control over. (See the book “Risk” by John Adams.) Card failures would fall into that category, I think. For example, it would be instructive to compare the number of photographers who lost their pictures due to card failure to the ones who lost their pictures due to their camera being stolen. Theft is a situation that we like to think we have some control over; card failure, by comparison, is out of our control.

silmasan

Thus the reason for redundancy, backups etc, duh… Since that’s something you can have control of.

Try presenting that argument in front of data mitigation experts, or data recovery professionals. Ever heard of their adagium “two is one, one is none”? People will NOT believe in that, until they experience it themselves.

Even film is not a good comparison since the information stored there won’t “corrupt” the way digital data does.

Aphidman

I have yet to see an argument for two card slots (using one for backup) based upon anything but anecdotes. I have a master’s degree in mathematics, and have worked in computing since 1986; I need hard numbers to convince me.

There are chapters in Adams’ thoroughly-documented book on risk that will raise your eyebrows. We are more afraid of all sorts of things than we ought to be.

silmasan

And so you may never be convinced then. Because as far as I see, card failures don’t happen to most people or else there would have been mass outrage, or plain rejection of the digital medium. And so the few samples can and will always be shrugged away as “anecdotes”. Call them the unlucky ones and it’s done. In perhaps the 99+% of the case, you’ll have the statistics to back you up, right?

I’ll get back to the point above. Nothing will convince someone until they have something they value highly lost to preventable media failure/defect.

Also, I get the idea of what you’re saying. This is not me trying to scare anyone to be afraid of anything.

Aphidman

I’m a mathematician. Show me the numbers. Don’t say “perhaps in 99% of the case,” show me exactly what the hard data reveals. That is the only way to decide these things rationally rather than emotionally. I have worked on failure mode prediction for spacecraft. The downside, of course, is that the card vendors have no interest in providing the data we need. If they did, I would buy you a beer and we could commiserate. By all means, get the camera that does what you want and gives you the margin of safety that makes you feel secure. (If I wind up eating crow on this topic, I will let you know. Good night!)

silmasan

“For example, it would be instructive to compare the number of photographers who lost their pictures due to card failure to the ones who lost their pictures due to their camera being stolen.”

I agree, we need the hard numbers.

For now though you have a couple other commenters with anecdotes in this thread if you want to discuss this with.

Good morning! 🙂

bobgrant

Great point. I know people who’ve had cameras stolen or lost the cards. Never once did I meet someone who had a card fail.

Allen_Wentz

Read my post a ways above. The point is that the value of a 2nd slot is NOT just about in-camera card failure.

Vince Vinnyp

I have had cards fail of all types except XQD but that is just not failed yet. Even then I can lose them or accidentally wipe the, so redundancy is important to me. Anyway reason for this post, live video of a card failure during a shoot. https://youtu.be/-JQhLvLo6Gc?t=4m58s The maths is simple the cost difference between 1 and 2 card slot cameras and having spare cards is less that one lost shoot. I have pictures from one card cameras before they had twin cards but then I always shot small cards and used 2 bodies or more so it minimised the loss.

Andrew

I think in all of these discussions a lot of people are missing the main point. The vast majority of people are not experiencing card failures and that number may be 99%.

Nikon may well want to push those people who feel that they want the added insurance policy of backing up their data to get the D500. As a business, Nikon needs the extra revenue. But the greater concern is that it is likely the professionals who form the majority of those that need two card slots. And the fact that the D7500 is such a capable camera, many professionals would have opted for the D7500 as their backup camera. Of course, a full frame camera is ideal for many tasks. So instead of buying two D500 cameras, their backup would now be the D7500. That is a major risk Nikon is likely not willing to make especially in a difficult market.

So I find all of this repeated arguing about two card slots senseless. The minute the D7500 was released, I expected people to quickly decide what purchase path they were going to pursue.

When Nikon came out with the D4, professionals were asking for its 16 MP image sensor to be in a more reasonably priced camera at $3,000 that they viewed as the ideal D700 replacement. Nikon obliged and gave them the Df at $2,750, a camera that came without video. The joke of it was that the D700 did not have video either but Nikon did that in order not to affect the sales of the D4 which was selling at $6,000. They also changed the form factor (vis-a-vis the Df camera) of the type of body one would expect of a D700 replacement.

Nikon is a business and we must give her the leeway to make the right marketing decision that will secure the future health of the company. They need to please their customers but they must also use wisdom not to hurt their revenue. And that is where the current conflict lies with the D7500. I for one feel that Nikon made the right decision even though there is a part of me that was disappointing that they did not include more of the D500 features in the D7500 😉

silmasan

Thanks for the wall, but in this case, I’m not even discussing about D7500 in particular, but (data loss to) “card failures as something beyond our control”.

KnightPhoto

Excellent points. I did buy a D4 for that reason BTW. And the D4 was a great camera so I didn’t hate Nikon for that ;-). In the case of the D7500 it is not the end of the world to buy a D500 if one MUST have dual cards/grip plus you get the AF module and many more benefits. I bought two D500 but I don’t begrudge that the D7500 looks like a great package, especially as the price drops over its lifetime, at which point it becomes a fantastic package.

Great review Steve!

Andrew

So, you as the mathematician want others to show you the numbers?
There are numbers in this thread, 2 photographers so far, and I’ll add my business partner to that list, as he had a card go down in his d800 on a wedding shoot.
So 3/number of togs posting here=more than zero, and if your images are critical then only zero chance of failure is good enough.

Eric Calabros

in math, we don’t respect individuals. We respect numbers 🙂

Andrew

Looks like you don’t even respect those, a rough analysis of this thread puts the number of people suffering failures of 1%, much higher than people having their house burgled, would you suggest people don’t get insurance?

This thread doesn’t represent the industry and the whole market. Usually victims of failures are very vocal about it, so magnifying the size of their minority.

Ushanas Trivedi

But insurance has cost which here is buying more expensive cameras with dual cards. Nikon is giving you various alternatives, please buy what fits your need.

Andrew

Yes there is a cost, but by removing the second card slot from this range the cost has been increase – a lot. Also some don’t want the d500 so basically nikon are fleecing the market by adding artificial differences that where not there before.

Ushanas Trivedi

Buy D7200 then. Less weight & dual card slot. Simple

Allen_Wentz

However in real-world usage of math we also use likely estimates and ranges all the time.

It isn’t even 99%. I was a working shooter in NY and now I live in LA. The ONLY card failures any of us ever heard about has been online. And I think the rare instances are due to cheap cards, poor handling of the cards or lies from folks who collect gear and specifications in life. There’s nothing wrong with the D7500.

Spy Black

“I’m a mathematician.”
…and obviously not a professional photographer.

Yes, that all sounds wonderfully logical until the card fails in your camera on the wedding you’re shooting and you lose all the images and/or
video you recorded of someone’s once-in-a-lifetime event that you had the responsibility to record for them. Are you going to recite the mathematical properties of that experience to the bride and groom? At least you can mathematically compute the losses to your income when they hit you with a lawsuit. You can also mathematically compute the odds of your career as a professional photographer ever going anywhere else after that.

And I’m only using a wedding as one example. It get exponentially more complex than that (pun intended)

Eric Calabros

You response is actually an emotional reaction. Everybody can make songs about losing.

Spy Black

The bride and groom will become very emotional with YOU when you tell them you lost all the shots and videos of their wedding. 😉

Eric Calabros

Yes, but the point is how many times that happens in the whole wedding industry.

Spy Black

When it happens to YOU, will you be concerned about the odds?

Eric Calabros

A lot of OTHER terrible things could also happen to me. I can’t afford to worry about every possible event. I doubt pro wedding shooters use D7xxx series as their main gear. One of the many reasons pro wedding shooters haven’t switched to mirrorless is the unfortunate fact that client expects pros to carry bulky cameras. Its not made for that industry. But lets assume target costumers of $1200 segemt are shooting some serious works that losing part of it may end up receiving death threats. With this argument, Canon users are under some horrible risks, because even their popular full frame 6D and even its successor 6D mark2 are single slot bodies, let alone their enthusiast crop sensor bodies. Yet we haven’t seen sad stories coming from their camp being more frequent than ours, and.. market share numbers indicates Canon sells a huge​ number of those enthusiast bodies.. almost 2x of Nikon.

In a nutshell, this is nikon’s way of telling us that D7xxx series has been demoted to “amateur” status . Personally I don’t think the decision is too apalling as such. Afterall the price difference between D8xx series and Dx(FF) series is equally high.

Eledeuh

> In a nutshell, this is nikon’s way of telling us that D7xxx series has been demoted to “amateur” status .

I’m fairly certain it has always been considered “amateur”, it just punched above its weight in some regards, now arguably it still punches above its weight, just not in the “data redundancy” department.

Earlier because of lack of a pro Dx body, Dxxx had to be considered as the flagship Dx. Not in terms of Dx vs Fx sense.

Eledeuh

I’m not talking “DX vs FX”, it’s just that being a “flagship DX” never really made it a “pro camera”. There just was no “pro DX” after the D300S, and in many regions the official marketing and classification by Nikon always was that of an “enthusiast” camera.

The D7000 and upwards have always been more “de facto pro cameras” than “official pro cameras”, so in a sense, removing that type of feature is not really out of place on Nikon’s part.

That is all correct and everybody knows it but that doesn’t explain the existance of dual card slots in them. Does it? All I was saying was ” when there was not appropriate body in the line up, Nikon filled the void with less than best Dxxx and gave it premium features and now they are equally brutal in taking them away to prove that it is an amateur camera.
And your last sentence is confirmation of my point. So what are we arguing about?

Eledeuh

> So what are we arguing about?

Maybe you were reading too much in my initial comment it didn’t mean more than was written.

I was just stating that while some people here apparently see a “huge downgrade”, as if the D7K line was “demoted” from some higher place, I say it was arguably always there, and if anyone somehow came to consider this product line to be something it isn’t, it’s probably a tad foolish to blame it on Nikon today.

silmasan

This is actually more accurate going by Nikon’s own terms. Proof: current NPS requirement list (I’ve checked at least Australia and Canada), where the only DX camera listed is the D500.

In a previous list (US), D7100 and D7200 were only included under “backup body”, but starting in 2017 they (US only?) seem to have a new point-based system to measure eligibility.

Allen_Wentz

Sorry Eric but that logic escapes me.

Spy Black

I’m using acwedding as an example. There are any number of situations like on-location prodict shoots, wildlife, et at where a D7xxx is a perfectly viable camera.

However you’te free to risk your assignments any way you wish, assuming you shoot professionally. Should you ever have a card failure on assignment, you can come back and review all of your own posts on the subject. 🙂

Eric Calabros

I haven’t seen a card failure in recent years, being my cameras, or many cameras many pro shooters I know are using everyday. The reason they don’t encounter with the problem you are so much worried about is that they 1-buy high end cards, and 2-handle them gently. Not because they have a second slot. Its 2017. We expect them to remove all the slots and give us internal SSD, and you want more of the “past”?

Spy Black

Pros handling gear gently. Right. So which one of your cameras has SSD storage? Right.

Allen_Wentz

No that is not the point. The point is that part of being a pro is to do _everything_ possible to avoid that ever happening. Whether P=0.001 or P=0.00001 is not the point.

Allan

You’re right. But, because we are emotional beings, it is difficult to make decisions based solely on cold, impartial analysis.

If someone uses a camera with only one card slot, and worries that the it will fail, even after no failures after 5-10 years of use, he should have bought a camera with 2 card slots, saving himself years of anxiety. Please note that there are anxious, intelligent people who understand statistics, but worry and understand their worrying is poorly .

An easy-going photographer who has an unusual card failure and loses pictures, will deal with the loss (professional or personal), in the same easy-going matter.

We try to base our decisions (including purchases) on logic, but we are influenced by our emotional makeup.

Allen_Wentz

Even if it is all emotional (and it is not), emotion is huge in photography. If redundancy makes one more comfortable it also makes one a better photog.

Ryan

I agree! Having an immediate backup for e.g. weddings, is crucial. For me, as soon as the wedding or fashion event is over, one card goes into my camera suitcase while the other goes into my pocket. Also as soon as I get home, it is downloaded straight to my MacBook and the 2 cards are untouched until my client has the files. This is just how I do my important jobs. Having a secondary slot in camera is necessary for some!

The best advantage of redundant cards might be simply that if you accidentally erase a card, which has happened and will do again, then the redundant card could save your day. And of course it’s not like this is a particularly expensive feature if you have it in your current camera.

I might add, though, that in the one or two cases in a near-lifetime of digital photography this has happened to me, I’ve been able to use unerase software and get my data right back without loss – just a sleepless night or two.

What you need is a critical work loss due to card failure. Not numbers. No amount of (or is it quantity?) of numbers can compare with that.

Allen_Wentz

You and the folks who gave you votes up need to think real-world rational, rather than thinking it is about simplistic probabilities.

1) Having built-in redundancy is psychologically reassuring, and being more psychologically comfortable makes one a more capable photog. This can actually be a big deal, not insignificant.

2) Having dual real-time captures happening means that one card, a complete backup, can be instantly and easily moved to a geographically different place. E.g. At the completion of shooting and before my camera leaves my hand for any reason, Card #2 goes into someone else’s pocket.

2a) If I then get robbed (not unheard of when visibly carrying $10k of readily marketable gear around), the project is not gone. This is huge for pros.

2b) The first thing I do every day post-shoot is back up and verify the Card #1 images to my laptop and external backup drive. Having Card #2 elsewhere means that if I manage to somehow trash the Card #1 pix through operator error (a very common mechanism for causing lost images), Card #2 is still available unscathed.

Bottom line is that a 2nd card slot is hella more valuable to a pro than might be inferred by simplistically thinking solely about probabilities of in-camera card failure.

Aphidman

I need to remember to not make forum postings when I am tired and argumentative.

Perhaps as a sort of punishment for my attitude, the following day two fighter jets flew right over my house (a very rare thing), and I had *no* card in my camera.

To those whose ire I provoked: may your cards never fail, and may all your images be keepers!

Pickard

You said you “…have worked in computing since 1986”.

Then I am baffled, since in computing, backing up any data (that one considers valuable) has long been established as standard procedure or industry’s best practice. Those who do care about their data are doing backups automatically today without much thinking, much less emotions such as fear.

JXVo

The problem with card read/write failures is that they can go undetected until you try to retrieve the pics. The only card that ever failed on me was a no-name-brand cheapy and I lost an afternoon’s fun.

However, I can see how those doing paid work would take comfort in dual storage capability for capturing moments that can’t be recreated. I think Nikon is telling you to buy the D500 for such work.

Gary

I took my D800 to Burma on a once in a lifetime vacation. A few days in, and one of my cards stopped working.

I put another card in the second slot, and never had a problem again. To me it doesn’t matter what the root cause was. By having two cards it meant that I didn’t lose 3 days worth of shots.

Incidentally, I tried the card in another camera and it didn’t work in that one either. I brought it home and tried to recover the data, but to no avail.

Eric Duminil

I agree that card failure is probably very rare. But I’ve heard of many events during which supposedly pro photogs lost pictures for one reason or another (theft during the event, theft at home or car accident after the event, gross negligence, …) With dual slots, it’s much easier to prevent data loss : every now and then, give the second card to your assistant or a person you trust. Put a fresh card into the second slot, and make sure that 2 copies of the same picture are never at the same place (room, car or bag) at the same time until all pictures are saved at home, with an on-site backup and an off-site backup. Only then can you format the cards clean.

Andrew

A lot of the argument about a second card slot seems conflicted. If someone needs a “second slot for redundant backup for time critical events like weddings and such”, why not get a D500 than cry as if Nikon’s decision to realign their D7000 product line to enthusiasts is an abhorrent decision? These professionals have been getting a free ride on a prosumer targeted camera for a long time and want the party to continue indefinitely.

All the aphorisms about Nikon making a bad decision on the D7500 are true; it is a bad decision for professionals (wanting an inexpensive and highly capable camera) but a good decision for prosumers as they benefit from advanced flagship features at the expense of the professional photographers losing some low cost but highly desired features like two card slots.

After attacking Nikon senselessly for years, now they have a good reason to complain, their loophole has been removed. Good riddance. Nikon is not perfect, but for some, Nikon could do nothing right. Now in all fairness, there are some prosumers that have a need for some of the abandoned features, and as always, my sympathies goes to them as they have come to love the form factor of the D7000 series. And there are some pros that are on a limited budget, and to those also, my sympathy go out to them. But for the professional complainers, may I suggest that the D500 is an exceptional camera?

Spy Black

“..why not get a D500 than cry as if Nikon’s decision to realign their D7000 product line to enthusiasts is an abhorrent decision?”

That’s obviously where Nikon wants you to go. However they’ve thrown another wrench in the machinery by forcing you to buy two different format memory cards in order to have redundant archiving. This screws everyone up because a spray & pray shooter will not be able to redundantly archive RAW data at the full speed available on the dead-end XQD format, and a non spray & pray shooter is forced to buy an overpriced stillborn memory card that he/she doesn’t need. Nobody wins, everybody loses.

Andrew

I think that Nikon did not make this decision lightly as many have argued about the lack of widespread availability of the XQD format and in contrast the speed advantage of the XQD. Some do not seem to mind the juxtaposition, but a few find it as an irreconcilable difference of opinion. I would not want to get in the middle of this quibble.

Allen_Wentz

Yup. I am firmly on the dual-XQD side but I do see both sides of the argument.

What I would hope is that Nikon further differentiates the D5xx as pro by adding GPS and dual XQD now that D7500 services prosumers who only want slower SD.

I think Nikon will bring identical slots to D510(?) Just like they did with D4s-D5.

Allen_Wentz

Going to dual XQD is about the only thing that might make me want to upgrade my D500. Or adding GPS.

Give me both dual XQD and GPS and Nikon could get me to D500s or whatever.

docnorth

You have a point, but please remember D700, the workhorse that most professionals have used and many still do, with one CF slot. Also when it comes to D7500 we suddenly read in a few weeks about more card failures than for the last ten or more years…

Spy Black

I understand that, but we’re in an age where we’ve had the option for redundancy for YEARS and then had it taken away. Just because it for the most part worked well doesn’t mean that professionally you have to go back to those days. Granted, it’s obvious Nikon wants us to go upscale to a D500, and I would be fine with that, had Nikon not screwed that up by putting two different card formats in that camera, forcing you to invest in a dead-end card format.

Allen_Wentz

Pure nonsense Spy.

1) XQD is far superior to SD and always will be. Most photogs paying the extra $$ for a D500 body over D7500 would not want to cripple the capabilities of the D500 with the lame SD of the D7500.

2) XQD will always be available. Not at the local 7-11 like SD (in its slowest versions), but just as available as CF and other pro cards.

3) Use of modern Nikon tools for bursts (as clearly demonstrated by Steve Perry) are not “spray and pray.” That is just ignorance from someone who has never spent time and learned D5 or D500 or D7500; just look at the burros and the meadowlark pix, both burst captures.

Spy Black

“…just look at the burros and the meadowlark pix, both burst captures.”

…and what makes you think that wasn’t spray & pray?

bjrichus

The absence of AI linkage is the big show stopper for me. Backwards compatibility to all those fantastic classic lenses is a big plus. My 300mm does really well on the D7x00 DX bodies. I am NOT going to buy a body that I cannot mount it on and at least get metering info.

And in the video, I say pretty much the same thing – if I were shooting paid events of the once-in-a-lifetime variety, I’d want a backup slot. However, the backup slot itself doesn’t help me capture better images – it only makes sure that if something horrible happened to the card, I’d have a backup.

Hate to break it to you, but the studio I’ve been working in replaced 5D Mk IIIs with a D7200 to shoot artwork, and has been cranking out work like a champ, so there goes your concept of what constitutes pro gear or not.

Fry

So ? They’ll have to live with the consequences. They don’t get to complain about a camera getting dumbed down if it was not meant for such use in the first place.

Tough luck. Want better features ? Buy better gear.

Spy Black

No, want better pictures? Be a pro. Then any camera is a pro camera.

Fry

This discussion is about Pros complaining that Nikon is removing unnecessary features from consumer cameras. It’s not about picture quality.

Ben Cushwa

The D7500 isn’t targeted at people who would need a redundant card. It’s an enthusiast counterpart to the D500, not a competitor.

Like I said above, the only think Nikon got wrong with the D7500 was the name. The fact that it seems like you’re losing some features detracts from the fact that, at least on paper, it’s a fantastic enthusiast camera.

Chris Phillips

The D7500 is the first piece of the new Nikon segment as described by the president of Nikon in an interview about 2 months ago. It is the entry level for enthusiasts interested to get into a more elaborate/ expensive area of photography. It offers some really impressive features and the opportunity for enthusiasts to play on a higher level and be rewarded with images of quality similar to the ones in the review. And I say similar because Steve is a master guru in wildlife and landscape photography thus enthusiasts can aspire to reach this level proven that the D7500 can provide . Haters and trolls are for some reason, more attractive than ever these days and judging technology from their armchair is very much in fashion. Sadly people don’t have the time or money for testing themselves and take these idiots word for granted. Most importantly these reviewers are generally driven by personal profit either directly by the manufacturers or by the new modern way of begging by asking for donations , or both. Steven is like a breath of fresh air in this tube jungle of garbage , and has to be acknowledged as one of the most reliable sources of valid and accurate information. His E – books are real gems for enthusiasts who want to up their knowledge and skills and having gone through the material Steven offers I find that they are really useful for enthusiasts and pros alike. Thank you Steve for your great work and god bless. You Sir are precious.

Thank you Steve for your work and mostly for sharing the tricks of the trade.

WBR

I was recently in Namibia on Safari and had my 7200 and the 300pf lens. I’m happy I had the redundant SD card as a few photos on Card one were illegible. But I got the shot with Card 2. About 1 shot in every couple of hundred seems to go awry, maybe it’s the Lexar cards, who knows. But as this was a bucket list trip, I’m glad I had the redundant card….

Allen_Wentz

I now have tens of thousands of captures on the D500 cards with zero card failures. My XQDs are Lexar 2933x and the SDs are Sandisk Extreme Pro, all 64 GB.

Nothing wrong with wanting two card slots if that makes you comfortable. However, losing a shot every 200 is an outrageous failure rate. I put tens of thousands of images on my cards every year and failures of any kind are amazingly rare. I’d replace those with a couple quality Sandisk cards.

WBR

With the best Lexar cards available failure rate is low (I prefer Sandisc but they and the retailers in Manitoba are at odds, and the result was only Lexar is in town) but the black cloud that seems to follow me ensures failure always occurs with a critical opportunity…..I’m in the process of going back to Sandisc…..I think they are better. Still, it’s a lot better now than when I used to rely on slide film. As an add, the 7200 takes great photos. I see no reason to upgrade yet, and appreciate that despite the fact it isn’t the latest and greatest, it’s a darn good camera – with a back-up card. I’ll wait for the next generation of crop sensor cameras to see where I go next……if anywhere.

Tomáš Andraščík

mikrokonstrast and details likes better than d500

Reilly Diefenbach

Rubbish.

Andrew

This is by far the best camera review I have seen in a long time. With the other reviewers, the personality and bias of the reviewer seem to always get in the way. Steve Perry is the genuine article, he is knowledgeable, informative, and plain honest. A real breath of fresh air.

The D7500 is an exceptional camera in real-life usage as it is also on paper – per its specifications, very much a D500 with few exceptions, and comes in at an amazing price of $1,250. The D7000 has aged considerably, but the D7500 seems as if it is going to be a timeless camera, causing fewer people needing to upgrade for a longer period of time. That will mean fewer sales for Nikon in subsequent years. But Nikon will make up for it as more people end up purchasing this camera.

So yes, Steve Perry is an exceptional reviewer who really deserves more subscribers to his channel. The bottom line is if someone has a D7200, they should not kid themselves doubting that the D7500 is a superior camera. But based on their individual needs, the D7200 is still a very good camera.

The D7200 is just too good a camera at its price for this to exist!. I would much rather the D7200 successor had a focus selector stick & 8FPS! This new POS is nothing more than a cash grab!

Andrew

Your view completely. For many, the D7500 camera is a considerable upgrade above the D7200. And the features you hold dear to yourself are not essential to them. Companies are the owners of their products and may at any time reposition their product line as they see fit. From Nikon’s perspective, one option you have is to upgrade to the D500 to get the features you need. And if you do not consider that as a favorable option to you, then so be it.

The good thing is that as a consumer, you can vote with your dollars. For many consumers, if it means that by aligning the D7500 as close to the D500 as possible they will be sacrificing a few features that some professionals need from the D7200, then that is a reasonable compromise they are willing to make. Especially if Nikon does not want to lose sales from the D500 to the D7500 which means lower revenue.

Prosumers and enthusiasts are the ones the D7000 series were targeted to though some professionals decided to buy these cameras. Apparently, Nikon considers that as a loophole that they have decided to close. They might be doing that because of revenue constraints especially as their enthusiast cameras like the D7500 are starting to acquire a lot of professional features.

James Michael

Nikon needs to stop being strategic in their camera designs, and concentrate on making the best cameras they can. Adding and removing features because it might undercut sales is stupid. Make the best camera possible at a price point, and people will flock to you.

Somebody that shoots a lot of portraits would choose the cheaper D7200 because of the battery grip. Removing the Pv function is stupid and costs nothing to include. That will cost Nikon money. Same with a single card slot. The D7500 is not a bad camera, but it is far from as good as it could have been. That is what chaps my hide.

+1 you share exactly the same opinion on everything. This strategy is counterproductive for Nikon.

Andrew

There is so much of what you said that I agree with, but I think the solution to the problem is not something you discussed 😉

I have argued your point in the past but with the exception that Nikon needs to act more like a consumer products company than a high-end professional camera company. They definitely should protect the revenue from their top end professional products but not at the expense of limiting features in their smaller and lighter enthusiast cameras as they can achieve both goals; let me explain.

They came out with the Nikon 1 mirrorless cameras with the intent of releasing smaller cameras and failed to realize that small does not have to mean fewer features as they are doing with their D7500 cameras. To step up to the D500 just in order to get some desired features is quite shortsighted. Yes, the D7500 is an exceptional camera, but apparently, the Nikon executives in Japan don’t seem to realize that consumer options should prevail in product planning.

All Nikon should have done was to introduce two models of the D7500 and pack on every imaginary feature that is in the D500 that can fit into the smaller form factor of the D7500. They could then have priced that camera for $300 to $400 more to make up for the lost sales to the D500. Why the Nikon executives have not considered such as step (similar to what they did to the two variants of the D800 with one priced $300 higher) is beyond me.

The Nikon executives can get quite insular in their decision-making process that all they are doing is to frustrate their customers – especially those that want more features and can afford it. They have lost track of the fact that the D500 is a big and heavy camera that is not ideal for many people going on trips or outings who want to travel light. It shows you that smart people can do dumb things.

It’s simply the wrong name for this camera. It should have been D6500. By applying D7500 customers are getting this misleading perception that Nikon is going backwards.

Andrew

I do not agree. Nikon has made so many improvements in the technology and form factor of their newer cameras such as image sensor, metering system, Tilting LCD Touchscreen, 4K video, and more that they need to protect their professional product by not allowing the enthusiast cameras like the D7500 to steal sales from their flagship cameras. What you call going backwards is nothing more than creating a roadblock by removing non essential features for most enthusiasts.

The things Nikon removed from the D7000 series have nothing to do with the ability of the new camera from taking exceptional quality pictures. And the enhancements in the D7500 are so massive that in contrast, it is a major leap above the D7200.

Giving a camera a second card slot for supporting some older lenses is something that I suspect 95% of prosumers are not going to care about. But if you are talking about professional users and a few of Nikon’s older customers who have certain legacy lenses, then sure, for them it is a regressive decision. But Nikon is a business and they are forcing those users to buy the D500.

I completely understand your thinking and was initially taken aback by their actions, but the D7500 is so much like the D500 that it deserves the D7500 moniker 😉

bobgrant

I’d take the D7500 over the 7200 in a heartbeat. The review makes all of the correct points. It adds much more than it takes away and the stuff it adds give it capability for shooters, rather than spec hunters. All three are solid cameras and I prefer the D500, but the 7200 is the weakest if the three.

Stephen Gatley

The D500 exists making this turd irrelevant & hobbyists/semiprofessionals have the D7200. The only areas this camera ticks the boxes for me is the highlight weighted metering & group af the rest is spec junk!

bobgrant

I own a D500 and the D810. The group AF is fantastic. I wouldn’t touch the D7200 with a ten foot pole over the more capable D7500. You sound like someone who really “needs” to believe YOUR choice is best. But that’s not how shooters operate. We pick what works for what we shoot. I use the D810 and D800 for catalogue work and product shooting. The D500 is my all-around camera and the group AF is part of what makes it so good. The D7500 has this and it’s a nice compact design, making it better for walking around/travel. If I didn’t already have a D500, I might get the smaller D7500 on that point alone. D7200 is capable, but dated. Time marches on.

Stephen Gatley

Good for you acting like owning a D810 is an accomplishment in life?. I too owned a D810 & D610 for wedding work, but unlike you i don’t announce it like an idiot badge!. You are sounding like you need your opinion verified & come across desperate & needy FYI!

bobgrant

It’s a little late in this dialogue for you, after calling a clearly good and capable product a “turd”, to start taking the high road. No, I’m not proud of my gear. I do take some pride in the work I do with it and the money it brings. The rest is for posers and spec chasers. As the reviewer pointed out, the IQ quality of the 3 cameras is a WASH. So which camera has the more advanced AF system and which has a superior feature set that actually might CONTRIBUTE to getting a shot? That would be the D500 and D7500. There’s nothing really :”wrong” with the D7200. It’s a good camera, just like pretty much every other DSLR on the market. But it’s aging out of the lineup. It happens to every camera and it’s happening to the D7200. That doesn’t mean you still can’t do a job with it. I know a very successful wedding shooter still using D3s in the kit.

Mike A

stephen gatley – you sound like a .jackass. when bobgrant was having a civilized discussion w/ you

charles westerman

If you check the dxo mark tests the d7200 wins on IQ. The 7500 is very good if you have not got used to a 7200. I will move up, but to FF as most of my lenses are compatible (probably a D810 or its successor if they do not balls it up like this debacle).I use a grip for extended time lapse in the field and have lost a set of raw on a defective sandisk card. Not an upgrade to d7200 but an expensive sideways move in my opinion.

bobgrant

I’m sorry, but the AF on the newer cameras absolutely make a difference in shooting certain types of subjects. The IQ is, as pointed out, a wash. The D7500 has more features that matter to actually getting a photo, The reviewer carefully pointed this out and he’s 100% correct.

charles westerman

He may be correct there, but getting keepers is down to technique as much as technolrogy. I started with film manual focus SLR’s in the seventies when spray and pray photography was a prohibitively expensive way of doing things.
The article’s author has provided some wonderful shots and I am not crticising him in any way whatsoever, my main subjects are macro or landscape making this camera an unnecessary and prohibitively expensive sideways move for me. If I had a D7000 or D7100 then it would be a no brainer.

Allen_Wentz

So far, in my experience, 100% of photogs using the derogatory term “spray and pray” have not learned the tools available in D5/D500 and to a lesser extent D7500.

Steve Perry appreciates the new tools. As do I, and I have never been a spray and pray photog. I mostly set previous fast bodies like D2x and D3 to intentionally-slowed 3 fps when doing infrequent bursts.

Allen_Wentz

DxO is largely nonsense when used as some kind of camera-selection tool. The D7500 is far more competent than D7200, period.

According to those tests the differences are a max 0.1 to 0.2 stops in each category. Can you even change the exposure in those values?
And the actual image differences in the real world scenarios are again something else. Just like DXO ratings for lenses tell only a small part of the story.

amaas

It depends largely on what you need in a camera.

For someone who depends on speed (AF/FPS) or high ISO performance, the D7500 adds more than it takes away. For event shooters, it’s a tossup, better IQ and AF, but more than 50% less battery life (D7500 is has a lower battery life before the grip comes into play) and no backup card.

However, for someone who shoots low-ISO primarily in single-shot AF, it gives up more than it takes away (D7200 has more DR and resolution at ISO 400 and below, optical DoF preview for those of us shooting handheld and even at MSRP is cheaper).

At the end of the day, the D7500 is a downgrade from the D7200 for anyone shooting landscapes, still life, portraiture, or architecture, but an upgrade for sports and wildlife shooters.

bobgrant

I would never choose any of these for landscapes. They are inferior tools against FX models. And I’d argue that there are many types of portrait work where either camera might have a small advantage, but again, not my pick against my FX bodies. Nor do I want a grip on these DX cameras as I grab them because their smaller than my FX. So the D7500 wins in so many areas right down to being smaller. Why would I want a larger slower camera with an inferior AF module? This is not an attack on the D7200. I don’t run around and call cameras “turds”. But the D7200 is not a camera I’d consider against the superior 7500. These are ALL good cameras and each person has to pick based on budget and needs, but I was really just jousting with the silly notion that any of these are “turds.” Fanboys shouldn’t own Nikon or Canon before learning the craft.

amaas

People pick DX largely on one thing alone, budget. Size occasionally enters into it, but for static or slower moving subjects the small size camera is a D3400 or D5600, as the D7x00 series is not significantly smaller or lighter than FX (these cameras are basically the same size as a D610 or D750 anyways)

Until you come up with an FX option which does not double to triple the cost of putting together a system people will want cost-effective and capable DX bodies. And that market is massively larger than the FX market (look at the production numbers sometime, any of the 4 digit bodies has production numbers 3-4 times as high as the 3 digit bodies). The choice for most shooters is D7500 vs D7200, not FX vs DX, because FX simply isn’t in the budget due to lens costs, even the D610 at only $250 more than a D7500 these days would have a system cost 2 times or more as high as a D7x00 for a similar basic kit.

And for the shooter who doesn’t shoot sports or wildlife, the D7500 is not a superior camera. It’s an inferior one.

It has less DR at base ISO, less resolution and less colour discrimination. Not by large amounts, but commensurate to its advantages at higher ISO’s. Why would I buy a more expensive camera that is inferior in the most critical areas. AF and FPS? who cares, the camera will be either in C-L@3fps or S drive modes for its entire life anyways and much of the time it’s going to be in single-point AF or M focus modes and the 51-point unit is still a very effective AF system with few weaknesses.

I will be in good time i just got the 200-500 5.6E! My niche is portraiture so i’m holding out for the D810 successor but the 7000 series line was my go to for birding!

Ric of The LBC

Pssst. I have a secret for you.

All cameras, ALL are cash grabs.

JXVo

Excellent wildlife images.

I suspect that D7100/7200 were slightly up-specced from the original intention for the D7x00 line in order to cover the gap left by the missing D400, that must have been shelved for some reason. Now that D500 is out, the D7500 doesn’t need to fill the shoes of a missing bigger brother and it has been positioned firmly back into the original D7x00 niche.

Of all the ‘downgrades’ I think that omission of the 2nd card slot is the most unfortunate but as Steve Perry points out (and proves) the camera is seriously capable and the upgrades to AF, fps, buffer and exposure modes improve the most limiting issues of D7100/7200 while staying in a similar price range.

silmasan

It is, for all intent and purposes, a supercharged D90 (back when there was D300/D300s), so this is perfect for those upgrading from that model, or D3xxx/D5xxx. At this price level ($1000-1200) it’s kinda still alright to have the feature set (if you pretend there’s no D7100/7200 for a moment), but no way is it acceptable at $2000 (cough cough 6D II).

So I hope Nikon keeps D750 line mostly as it is, just add a durable/pro-grade shutter, and it’ll be a damn solid product for years to come). That could steal a lot of new users and from other brands.

JXVo

I see on the forums and also where I live that a lot of pro photographers are using D750 and D7x00. Perhaps these cameras were never intended for this but their capabilities, image quality and price make them attractive.

silmasan

D750 definitely qualifies as a “pro body” in NPS membership requirement (D600/D610 too). So Nikon better give them (incl. successors) pro-grade durability. D750 has the best balance in terms of image quality imo, and prices are going down soon (or already). That’s perhaps the good thing with much publicized recalls. 🙂

The recalls of the shutter and mirror box issues are a shame especially since the D750 is a very attractive and better alternative to it’s competitors. Nikon is like two steps forwards and one step backward – a reason why they can’t steal market share from Canon or they even loose in favor of Canon.

Allen_Wentz

Nikon’s designations of “pro” bodies have never made any sense; zero. Including the D600 for instance, while excluding the D500.

silmasan

D500 is included. Maybe you were looking at a list that wasn’t up-to-date. There are variations between countries but D300/D300s used to be part of the list too.

James Michael

My friend is a wedding photographer (the best in the area), and she uses a D750. In fact she bought 2 last year, and puts a different lens on each. Before that she had 2 mixed bodies.

Nikon needs to stop to shift and rename buttons around on these bodies. Canon is having the same consistent button layout at the top plate of their cameras through several bodies and iterations to provide consistent usability, at least they offer more buttons.

It’s strange for me having the metering mode button on the back of this D7500 while it was on the top plate before – now we have ISO on the top plate. The D610 is having the metering mode button on the top plate while the ISO button is on the back – it’s simply the reverse behavior.

Stephen Gatley

I catalog my RAW files & Cull my JPEG, single SD slot is the reason i decided against the 80D. when mirrorless users are requesting dual SD from their manufacturers, omitting it is a DUMB DECISION!

All those Sony mirrorless A7 cameras have only one SD slot. Only the $4400 expensive A9 will give you two slots.

Nemmondom Meg

Does it have the option to back button af?

JXVo

Yes you can re-assign the AE-L / AF-L button to AF-ON. Exposure and focus lock can, in turn, be re-assigned to one of the Fn buttons.

Aldo

Love the burro shot. Not crazy about the fall off but they are amazing images nonetheless

blackTIE

I like the deeper grip of the D7500 (because of the thinner body on the grip side). Just like the D5500/D5600 and the D750 I believe. I now have a few Nikon 1 bodies, but I used to have a D80 and I didn’t like the ‘fat’ grip…

Ingo Hamann

First of all: Steve, I enjoyed your video once again, as I read your e-books with a lot of interest. Thanks!
The D7500 is indeed a perfect upgrade for those people coming from the D3xxx or D5xxx series, who are still looking for a handy camera.
Owning a D500 allready, I’m thinking about a D7500 as a backup, for example when I find myself in a situation where I don’t dare to switch lenses (dust, moisture). In that case the lower size and weight combined with the high picture quality comes in perfect!

Nikon needs to stop to shift and rename buttons around on their bodies – it doesn’t provide consistency and looks less professional.

Canon is having the same consistent button layout at the top plate of their cameras through several bodies and iterations to provide consistent usability, at least they offer more buttons.

It’s strange for me having the metering mode button on the back of this D7500 while it was on the top plate before – now we have ISO on the top plate. The D610 is having the metering mode button on the top plate while the ISO button is on the back – it’s simply the reverse behavior.

If you want to learn how to operate your cameras blindly without guess work this is counterproductive.

Allan

“Nikon needs to stop to shift and rename buttons around on their bodies – it doesn’t provide consistency and looks less professional.”

I think Thom calls this moving the “cheese”. He has been writing about this for awhile.

MB

Nice review …
It seems to me that D7500 should not be considered as an upgrade of D7200, D500 is supposed to fill that role …
D7000 series was kind of a replacement for both D90 and D300, untill D500 came out … so D7500 is kind of a new thing in Nikon line up, same as D750 is not an upgrade of D700 …
Also for people needing FX/DX combo (and many people do) they have high end option D5/D500, but also much lighter and more affordable D750/D7500 set … so it all kind of makes sense … or maybe it is just me ;o) …
Although I still miss D700/D300 combo, fantastic cameras at the time that could use a common grip fox example …

We do not yet know what Nikon’s long-term lines will look like, Given HUGE sales decreases and new mirrorless coming we must expect reorganizing of product lines.

Carleton Foxx

Now this is how ALL reviews should be done. Bravo.

Reilly Diefenbach

Great review and pics, Steve!

HD10

Rear IR port. This is very helpful and convenient, providing a reliable, quick and inexpensive method to wirelessly release the shutter, dispensing with the need to attach a cable release. This is specially useful when shooting at night as attaching a cabled release at night is not easily without difficulty or without ruining one’s night vision.

The D90 did not have the rear IR port, but the D7000, D7100 and D7200 have the rear IR port. The D7500 is missing the rear IR port.

The D5100, D5200, D5300, D5500 had the rear IR port. The D5600 is now missing the rear IR port.

The D3200, D3300 has the rear IR port. The D3400 is now missing the rear IR port.

The only current Nikon dSLR that still has the rear IR port is the Nikon D610 and the D750.

I have a cable release unit and a small led flashlight (even those from your bicycle help) if you work at night. No big hassle for me.

HD10

All my LED flashlight are at least 85 lumens. My phone’s LED is my lowest powered flashlight. This is still too bright. With the IR remote, I simply point it to somewhere in the rear of the camera and I can wirelessly release the shutter without any preparatory step.

I use about 5 different bags and each bag already has a spare IR remote. This is easily done as the IR remote is small, light and inexpensive. The when I use a camera with an IR port, I carry another one with me in the pocket and if I am wearing a jacket, I have still another IR remote in the jacket. It’s very easy and convenient.

I have a cabled release, as well as two radio-based wireless release which I can also use as a cabled release. But these are bulky and as mentioned, not easily attached at night. Moreover, the 10-pin port is already taken by a GPS receiver and while I can still attached another device through a pass-through, the resulting connector on connector connection is fragile and can rip off the 10-pin connector as what happened with a colleague.

I wish ALL Nikon cameras, including the professional Nikon cameras will have a rear IR port (in addition to the 10-pin port). This is one of its differentiating feature from other camera brands and I am unhappy to see Nikon let go of this to save a few pennies.

Hint: You can connect the cable release commander already at home and you need to connect it only once. Also i don’t put my camera all the time out and into the bag. You can even carry the camera around if it’s fixed on the tripod with a wide angle lens.

But if you like to complicate things that up… it’s up to you – nobody is forcing you to apply new rules.

HD10

Hint: One can damage the camera’s connector by pre-connecting the cable release while packing the camera in a very tight bag filled with bodies, lenses filters, and other stuff. The cable release would also be still another stuff to fit in what is already a heavy and filled backpack.

To me Nikon is wasting money with key mission and Nikon 1 + some Coolpix cameras. Plus we have the damage control of the D600 + D750 (shutter + mirror box issues).

But i don’t want to be a customer that needs to pay for the mistakes those Nikon managers have made in the past – now they are loosing profits.

Why has Nikon lost so much market share and Canon could gain market share? I once was a proud Nikon user, starting 2012. At our current time i need to question some things…

koenshaku

True, but both Canon and Nikon are losing market share, Canon is just a larger company with different products. Both need competing mirrorless systems and unless they can do something cellphones cannot on their point and shoot entries they may as well abandon them. I like the tech in Sony mirrorless solutions, but I also like a larger camera bodies with better lens options, so I don’t see myself switching anytime soon.

In fact when Nikon does actually go mirrorless I hope they keep their F mount, if they don’t they will lose ground in lens options with competing products and early adopters will have fewer reasons to switch. Here’s to hoping that the new AF-P lens are designed for both mirrorless and mirrored Nikon bodies.

Max

Canon lost much less market share than Nikon, and they’re already on a roll with their mirrorless.

Exactly that was my point in the initial post. Although the Canon M5 is not really something which attracts me compared to FUJI or Sony.

RC Jenkins

(Not directed primarily at you, Max), but there seems to be confusion on ‘market share’ vs. volume in some of the comments here. Market share is a percentage: and if the overall market declines and your volumes stay steady, you’ve increased your market share. If the market declines, and you’ve declined slower than the market, you’ve also increased your market share.

Whether Canon gained or lost market share depends on many factors–including when? What is the “market” is defined as (Cameras? Digital Cameras? ILC’s? Lenses? DSLRs?). Etc. There is no scope or context to the original ‘market share’ comments above, which appear to be rehashes of others’ past comments, out of context.

Most estimates put Canon at roughly 50% of the DSLR market (new sales)–compared to roughly 25% for Nikon. If I recall correctly, 10 years ago, Nikon and Canon were virtually tied. Canon is also competitive in their mirrorless sales. It’s probably a good bet that Canon has increased market share over the past say 3-5 years in the overall ILC camera + lens sales, even if the market is either smaller than or growing more slowly than in the past. Also probably a good bet that Nikon has lost market share within this same scope.

The reasons are obviously very complex (performance, price, marketing/perception, availability, incumbency, etc.); but what is very clear is that Nikon needs to ‘one up’ Canon in the combination of these factors.

Thanks. But Nikon is already intransparent about the support of recent AF-P lenses on existing Nikon bodies.

Nobody knows exactly yet which AF-P lens is working with which existing Nikon body to a full compatibility level or what level of compatibility is to be expected. Why does a company launch a new product like the new AF-P 70-300mm lens without providing some sort of good support / product information?

Usually this sort of compatibility testing is done by the internal QA / QM / QS department that is giving feedback to their engineers. Then product development and marketing decides which level of compatibility needs to be implemented, e.g. by providing firmware updates.

RC Jenkins

“And unfortunately; given where Nikon is today, they need some pretty fundamental changes to do the above well.”

Yes, it depends where you live. If you are in an area where they are accustomed to a lot of people then they would even try to steal your food 🙂

tomskyphoto

They seem to be more fearless in North America. Some years ago a big grey fellow chased me in a small street next to my hotel in downtown Montreal and repeatedly tugged at my pant legs out of frustration that I didn’t feed it. Unfortunately no camera – even not a phone – at hand.

Allan

I grew up in Montreal. We commonly fed the squirrels. So, I feel partly responsible for that fellow chasing you. 🙂

Allen_Wentz

Actually, the 24-85mm from D40 days has a built-in macro capability. Very convenient when one does not need a 105.

Tom Taubert

It seems like event photographers, concerned about card failures, can pay a few hundred more for the pro d500 camera and take the tax write-off. Why risk your career for such a small investment in capital equipment? What other business allows for such a small buy in?

Removing support for legacy lenses simplifies the mechanics: no slot, spring, string, potentiometer, or software needed for the old lenses. Great idea.

Actually, with the AIS tab removed, the D7500 is compatible with MORE old Nikon lenses, including pre-AI lenses that also had no tab at all.

Sure, you can’t use Aperture priority, and you’re forced to meter stopped-down, but that’s not the end of the world. Personally of all the things they removed from the D7500 versus the D7200, this one is the least of my worries, and I’m a huge fan of AIS lenses too.

Ric of The LBC

That’s the way I read the manual. All pre-AF lens will work. It is the same way the Df handles non-Ai lenses.

Pure Photography. 🙂

amaas

That would require the D7500 to have DoF Preview, so you could stop-down meter like the Df does.

The D7500 does not have DoF Preview, it’s one of the features that was removed. You can only preview aperture effects in Live View.

Ric of The LBC

I’m not understanding what the DoF preview button has to do with this?

Set the aperture, tell the camera what aperture you set then press the shutter.

amaas

The Df handles non-AI lenses by doing the following:

Set shutter, hit DoF preview to get a meter readout at set aperture, adjust exposure, press shutter to take picture.

the D7500 cannot do this, since it doesn’t have a DoF preview function. You need to know the aperture delta (how many stops down from wide open), not the working aperture, to do open-aperture through the lens metering, and that’s what an AI tab communicates to the body (absolute aperture is also needed for matrix metering, but that is set electronically for matrix metering on all bodies except the FA)

In reality, the D7500 almost assuredly works like the D5600. No meter readout at all with non-CPU lenses, but as the D7500 stops down to selected aperture, you can approximate exposure in Live View.

Ric of The LBC

You are incorrect. DoF preview has nothing to do with it. ZERO.

Lens is registered in the Non-CPU registration where the maximum aperture is listed.

1. Mount the lens.

2. Adjust the aperture

3. Use the front command dial to tell the camera what aperture is set.

4. Half press the shutter button to meter.

5. Take the photo.

NO where in there is the DoF button needed.

Works with Manual or Aperture priority. AND Matrix Metering.

amaas

OK, so Nikon has added a neat hack since the non-CPU lens menu provides max aperture info to the Df. The procedure I specify works perfectly well on the Df, and is the standard for all the other bodies with the flippy AI tab (FT3, FE, FM, F2A, F3, F4, F5/F6 with factory non-AI mod, D1’s with F5 non-AI ring installed). It also works with non-AI lenses which clear the AI tab on almost all AI-compatible bodies (yes, there are some such lenses, including most older mirror lenses)

But that still won’t work on the D7500. because it doesn’t have the non-CPU registration feature (which was introduced on the D2/D200 bodies to allow matrix metering with AI lenses). The non-CPU lens menu is only present on cameras which support AI metering. See page 285 in the D7500 manual which specifically states that the metering system is inoperative with the D7500 and non-CPU lenses.

Ric of The LBC

Pure Photography

amaas

That’s not a given, being able to mount non-AI lenses on a camera with no AI tab depends on the style of minimum aperture indexing tab used (this detects if a lens equipped with an aperture ring is set to minimum aperture, necessary for AI-P, AF and AF-D lenses). Nikon uses either a slide switch or a ramped pushbutton, and only the latter is compatible with non-AI lenses. The slide switch variation will be permanently damaged if a non-AI lens is mounted.

The ramped pushbutton was introduced on the D40 and has only been present on the lower-end bodies. Luckily the D7500 has it, the first time it’s been present on a higher-end body with no AI support (the D90 was the last body to use the slide switch)

There is no stop-down metering on the D7500, in fact there is no method of stopping the lens down before exposure without entering Live View. Exposure however can be approximated in Live View with non-CPU lenses.

Ric of The LBC

Legacy compatibility has been enhanced.

Schtatten

Woah! At first look I thought that baby burro was a goat!

pippo

if you shoot weedings and charge thousands of $$$, don’t show up with a D7x00 and complain about its lack of certain features.

all those ppl complaining about the lack of a second card slot…. if the stuff you shoot is so important, you even need to back it up on the fly, don’t buy a mid-range consumer product, go for professional equipment. what’s next? ppl complaining about the D3600’s inability to take 11 fps? ridicules

Right. If you do this professionally you need to buy the right stuff for it. There is no excuse to buy equipment that doesn’t fulfill your requirements.

TheBronx

You are absolutely correct. But for hobbyists taking a one-in-a-lifetime trip, potential loss of images is an issue too. The issue isn’t the lack of a second card; it’s the removal of the second card when the previous cameras in the D7x00 line had it.

D610 and D750 are still having it and these are affordable cameras for hobbyists, too.

TheBronx

I held off on buying the D7500 and am awaiting the D750 replacement before deciding if/when to upgrade. The other alternative is to wait/see what mirorrless cameras are released in the future. Meanwhile, I’m fine shooting with my D7100.

sickheadache

…In other news…The D820 will be announced in Nine Days. Salute.

EnPassant

As much as many others here I found the D7500 disappointing. A few good upgrades came at the cost of losing several useful features present on D7200. But it may be for a reason.

Nikon clearly have shifted the D7X00 series from an allround camera into a more specialised sports and action camera, or a baby D500.
For everybody that benefit from the improved AF that may seem like an acceptable trade, just like the excellent video demonstrates.

But for many who use the earlier D7X00 cameras for their versatility and don’t see the D500 as an option Nikon lost a potential sale.
So why did Nikon do it, except for saving production costs?

Well, in the future camera world that in volume, no doubt, will be dominated by mirrorless cameras the remaining main niches for crop DSLRs will be the budget alternative for more reach in sports and action photography as well as the budget and lighter alternative for those who prefer optical finders. For everybody else a smaller mirrorless system makes more sense.

By positioning the more expensive crop DSLRs as action cameras Nikon have prepared the introduction of a crop mirrorless system (That should use a DX/APS-C sensor as that is the ideal compromise size for sensors in a system camera, and not to forget what Canon uses.) that in the long run will take the place as Nikons general purpose camera system for most people.

Swanny

Canon shooter here, so not really looking at a switch, but I really enjoyed the review. I SO appreciate hands-on, well-thought-out stuff as opposed to yet another “here’s what the camera features” kind of thing. Your pictures really speak for themselves, and I appreciate that this little camera’s got some pretty serious chops. It’s a good time to be in the market for a cam 🙂

I feel strongly that the only think Nikon got wrong with the 7500 was the name. People expected a successor to the 7200, but instead got an enthusiast version of the D500 that sits squarely between the 7XXX and 5XXX lines. If Nikon had given it some new name, the D6500 for example, nobody would have bat an eyelash about the things the things that were “missing” from it.

That was my thought, too. Because people expect that companies add and add new features to a successor if it is above the same product model number of the predecessor.

Numbers can do magic as we see on the tech specs sheet of a Sony A9… everybody was going to hype that 20 FPS performance while most shooters wont never ever need it in real life…

You can call this marketing tricks.

amaas

The problem is that it leaves Nikon without an enthusiast level camera for the landscape and similar set. Yeah, I know Nikon wants those user to suck it up and buy a D610 for $250 more than a D7500, but frankly then you run into the issue where you’re replacing your inexpensive but good DX wide zoom with an expensive but good FX wide zoom (good for Nikon/Sigma/Tamron, bad for you).

the D7200 remains the best landscape DX camera. But the second best is the D5600, not the D500 or D7500.

Nikon really should either release a D7500x (slower, higher-MP version, ideally with the AI tab back) or leave the D7200 hanging in the product line for a while

If you are really into landscapes i would buy the D810. It is giving you medium format quality at base ISO 64 with very fine detail and extreme low noise. Amazing image quality to me and it’s the best what you can get for it along with the Nikon 14-24 mm lens.

amaas

By that logic, there’s no reason for the D7500 or D500 to exist either, just buy a D5 and a 70-200E. The speed and AF performance of the D5 beat the D7500 as handily as the IQ of the D810 beats the D7200.

Most amateur’s aren’t working with the budget for FX. I can’t justify buying a D610 plus an FX wide (largely due to the cost of the lens, which equals or exceeds the cost of a D610) and a D810 body alone is going to cost almost as much as that body/lens combo.

I can on the other hand justify a DX body and a quality DX wide, at a third to half the cost of the equivalent FX lens.

Spy Black

Yes, but that’s no consolation to someone who’s used to redundant backup in their D7xxx camera.

Can’t argue with that – and don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending the single card slot either. I think Nikon should have left both card slots in place, along with vertical grip and Ai lens support. I think they would have sold a lot more cameras. But, as it stands, they didn’t and I think for many shooters, the new stuff outweighs what was taken away – but certainly not for everyone.

So glad that Steve reviewed this camera! Any wildlife photographer, serious or hobbyist, should give the D7500 a chance.

Really, all they should have done is called it a D6500, and it would have been fine, as others have already mentioned. The only reason Nikon called this camera the D7500 is that they wanted us to know that the 7xxxx line as we used to know it is NO MORE.

In fact, this is an EXACT repeat of how they could/should have called the D750 the D650, but instead they decided that naming it the D750 would silence the “true D700 replacement” whiners…

BVS

Personally, I think that’s a perfectly valid reason for naming it the way they did. Like you said, this is Nikon saying this is the new normal for the D7xxx line. If they called it D6500 then new users would be confused, especially down the line (what’s more advanced the D7200 or the D6700?), and users in the know would be given false hope that Nikon intends to continue the D7xxx line as it used to be sometime in the future and we’d have to hear “waiting for the D7500” forever. (like you said). The way they did it at least makes their intentions clear.

Green Flash

Steve: You should be the reviewer for every new camera. Your stunning pictures and how you took them, tell the story. In so many reviews, the sample photos are so mediocre you are left wondering what the camera is capable of. In the end, that’s what we want to know: You have left no doubt as to the extraordinary capabilities of this camera.

So sad, too bad

Great review! Very detailed and through.
I’m also glad Steve actually mentioned the annoying placement of the Fn1 button. Nearly all of the reviews I’ve read failed to mention this. Well done Steve!

Chris Bowler

Steve, something about the way you write and something about the way that you speak in your videos makes it feel effortless to absorb your message.

Mac

Great review, Steve. Very capable camera, without a doubt.

Ric of The LBC

“bison exhaust ”

hehe

Tom Taubert

EETimes notes that there are a lot of counterfeit SD cards on the market. Maybe old news to folks here:
…
The Counterfeit Report
recently published its findings about the extent of counterfeit SD
cards available for purchase, particularly online from dishonest sellers
using eBay, Amazon, and Alibaba offering high capacity cards at deep
discounts. Publisher Craig Crosby said the cards and packaging, using
common serial numbers, are nearly identical to the authentic product of
all major SD card brands.

Fraudulent cards do appear genuine, even once users have them in their
hands. They don’t realize the cards are counterfeit until they stop
working, …